Open RegOrg issues

With the exception of the first issue below, these should be easy. Is RegOrg aiming to be a Note instead of a Recommendation because there isn't enough time for it to be a Recommendation?
"RegOrg should be defined as an Org profile"

According to the definiting of an ORG profile, RegORG *is* an ORG profile. I think we can just say "RegORG is an ORG profile." in section "5. Relationship with the Organization Ontology":
"use of skos:altLabel or dcterms:alternative"

Both terms are fine. I don't see any overwhelming argument in favor of one or the other. I personally prefer altLabel, because using SKOS to label things is sort of a de facto best practice. It is fine for a document to have an altLabel without a prefLabel, as stated by this point in the SKOS reference:
"Should GLD vocabularies define conceptual models too?"

I think defining a conceptual model is a "nice-to-have" but it is not required. RegOrg does not need to define one. Even if it did, the conceptual model would basically look the same as the current RDF diagram, except you'd lop off the prefixes (skos: dcterms: etc.) and maybe switch from camel-case to regular case. I don't think the absence of a conceptual model is a barrier to anyone. I also don't think the presence of a conceptual model is a barrier to RDF users. There is quite a lot of content to help RDF users along.

With respect to the editors' notes at

"is this information in this table helpful? If so, is the table the best way to show it?"
I would split out the SPARQL query stuff from the table and just have it under the table, so that the table is of reasonable width within browsers. With that, the table is quite useful to summarize the preceding paragraphs.

"@@TODO Investigate the usage of this property as it discusses physical persons as legal entities. This is said to be out of scope of RegOrg earlier on. Property is not shown yet on the overview diagram"
Either remove this property, or add it to the diagram. As far as I can tell, this began life as legal:legalEntity from rov:registeredOrganization no longer means the same thing as legal:legalEntity, so I don't think uses of the Core Business Vocabulary will miss it if we choose to drop it.

All other editors' notes are either resolved by closing the open issues discussed above, or don't require any additional action with respect to the RegORG document.


Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 16:37:45 UTC